Barack Obama

FCC Moves To End Net Neutrality

In a vote this afternoon the Federal Communications Commission voted
open debate on a proposal that would essentially end net neutrality. In a
3 - 2 vote, Chairman Thomas Wheeler and the two other Democratic
members voted to allow Internet service providers charge content companies for faster and more reliable delivery of their traffic to users.

Topic: 

3

Gender Prison: White House taken to task over LGBT job protections

The Washington Post Editorial Board published an opinion essay on Sunday in favor of employment non-discrimination: How to protect gay workers

Historically...

IN THE politically charged election year of 1996 — the same year the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed both houses of Congress with veto-proof margins — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) reached the Senate floor and was defeated by a single vote.

One might have thought that in the 17 years since then, some sort of progress might have been made on that front. One certainly would have thought it would have progressed faster than marriage equality.

Topic: 

Column: 

3

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

The question of whether a military coup took place has vexed the White House. Under US law, most aid must stop to "any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d'etat or decree" or toppled in "a coup d'etat or decree in which the military plays a decisive role".

Source

But the president is less confused by the definition of traitor.

Topic: 

3

Historian Rick Perlstein Uses the Nation to Whine About My Tweet

I have to admit, I was surprised to be notified that Historian Rick Perlstein of Nixonland fame, devoted an entire column in the Nation to two tweets replying to him; one from myself and one from another commentator on twitter. It's also surprising, because I have been a fan of some of what Perlstein has written in the past, and I have cited him before. However, after this, I and certainly a lot of other people surprised at this lack of professionalism from an established writer, won't do it again.

After all, one doesn't normally read columns by established historians devoting entire pieces to complaints about tweets they received or people on twitter. Especially, one tweet that was merely a question about a widely cited article at CNET. I certainly don't know why Rick Perlstein was so offended by that to devote an entire piece in the Nation to mine and one other tweet he received. I have to wonder if he realizes how unprofessional he looks by doing so. The excellent responses to Perlstein's shoddy piece in the comments section certainly speak to that.

On Glenn Greenwald and His Fans

Read another tweet:
 

“NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants cnet.co/1agOFCy via @CNET What say you, @RickPerlstein ?”
 

I think we can detect here an accusatory tone, especially given the way the tweeter, “therealpriceman,” fawns over Glenn Greenwald generally. (Though you can never be sure on the Internet, and besides, why do people pursue political arguments on Twitter anyway? I’ll never understand how, for instance, “When u talk gun violence lk in mirror PA here we cling to guns-apologz to PRES O”—another tweet directed my way, apparently somehow meant to respond to this—could possibly contribute anything useful to our common political life.) I detect in this message: even the NSA says you’re wrong about Glenn Greenwald, so when are you going to apologize? And if I’m reading right, that’s some really smelly stupidity. Because the whole point of my original post was that there was plenty Greenwald had “nailed dead to rights” in his reporting. What I had in mind when I wrote that (I should have specified this, I think) was the stuff on Verizon turning over metadata to the NSA. And yet what therealpriceman links to is an article suggesting something that Greenwald has not (yet?) claimed, and which still remains controversial and undetermined: that the NSA has acknowledged that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a claim sourced to Representative Jerrold Nadler, which Nadler based on a classified briefing he and other Congressmen received, but which it has since been established Nadler probably just misunderstood.
 

{.....}
 

And given that perspective, I would love to know why Glenn Greenwald thinks the establishment cannot do to him, a relative flyspeck in the grand scheme of things, what they did to Dan Rather, a towering giant of Washington reporting going back to Watergate. Which is: consign him to the outer darkness, where the only people who care about what he has to say are the likes of my good friends @therealpriceman and @runtodaylight.

He starts out by assuring the audience that he has thick skin, but then goes on to prove just how thin it really is. By whining for 13 paragraphs or so about criticism, criticism from a couple of tweets he received days ago, it really doesn't show the maturity he was initially hoping to espouse. So since I apparently hurt his fee fees so bad, in 140 characters or less, I'll go ahead and put his suppositions to the test.

Topic: 

3

How Whistleblowing Differs From Traditional Civil Disobedience

I have nowhere seen a claim by anyone, most pertinently not by Snowden, that US laws against revealing classified information are “unjust laws”. Snowden is making no attempt to reveal the violence of the system institutionalized through these laws. In contrast to a disenfranchised group seeking ways to draw attention to the injustice they suffer, Snowden occupied a privileged position in which he had access to information not available to the general public. Snowden’s apparent care in what to reveal and what not to reveal constitute concrete demonstration of his respect for the general need for these laws. If he is who he claims, then Snowden balanced two legal, perhaps even moral, imperatives—the one to obey every law to the letter and the other to judiciously break one law (with minimal violation of its proper purpose) in order to reveal likely unconstitutional activity, activity much more threatening to the rule of law and to democracy than would result from his carefully chosen revelations.

When those engaging in civil disobedience break long-standing, unjust laws, they expect to face a penalty for their behavior. This is not because they are masochistic or eager to martyr themselves; rather, it is because they understand that they are engaging in a campaign to raise general awareness, and that such campaigns necessarily take time. Until the culture changes, and the laws change, they are best served to entertain no illusions about the probable response of the authorities. For ultimate success, they count on public reaction to the authoritarianism and violence they expose to be, at the very least, more sympathetic than, “Well, they broke the law and now they must do their time.”

Topic: 

3

Saturday May 25, 2013: Up with Steve Kornacki Tweets

Man, I was pissed off this morning. more about that meaningless BS speech from the President that was just bluster because the word is getting out about the forced feedings in Gitmo. This speech seems to give all MSNBC hosts orgasms as if it's the DNC in 2008 again. It was a rather sickening display all week, until today. Michael Hastings called out everyone's BS and showed how like Bush/Cheney this speech was even with some of the more loftier meaningless rhetoric which will have 0 action. There was also a lot of fear mongering about how we need drones or we're all going to die.

Topic: 

Column: 

3

Are We Really the Reality Based Community? We Don't Act Like It.

This is not directed at the reality based VOTS community.

And by "we" I don't mean me or I, because I make a good effort to at least try. I'm talking about blogs like Daily Kos. I had always assumed, because of the many insightful writers on the site and on the front page that was the case. However, we are starting to see some of what we see with corporate control of all airwaves in how site moderation is run.

For instance, whether on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC there is always a fake debate when it comes to climate change which is undeniably happening since we have hit 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere for the first time in 3 million years. When this spectacle that pretends to be a live debate on TV happens, there are always two guys picked by the network to come on TV to debate the issue; one a NASA scientist like say James Hansen and one fringe dwelling Koch funded climate changed denier to debate as if there is something to debate as if both sides have an equal argument to make. WRONG. The science is in.

I always thought we in the progressive blogosphere prided ourselves on not accepting that dynamic, but now I am starting to wonder. On the issues I go to great lengths to cover when it comes to the economy, there are certain undeniable facts that have to be acknowledged whether you are a Post Keynesian MMT proponent like me or not. I mean, if we are any different than debates on red state or the corporate owned media, that is. I have to wonder about that now, because it now appears from what went on in my last diary in the comment section that a moderator here stepped in and made an effort to portray the troll like behavior and continual denial of established facts in every diary of mine as "just an honest disagreement."

It was inferred that I was "out of line" for accurately describing a commentator while using a term that accurately describes his brand of troll like behavior. That's not out of line. When people act like trolls in every diary of mine I can only ignore it for so long before calling it out directly. We can't just ignore this kind of behavior forever in this community. I mean, not if we still consider ourselves part the reality based community. Do we?

Topic: 

3

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Barack Obama